The bill would enact new rule and regulation authority and
amend existing zoning law regarding sport shooting ranges. Sport
shooting ranges would be defined as any area designed and
operated for the use of archery, rifles, shotguns, pistols, semiautomatic firearms, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar
sport shooting.

The Secretary of Wildlife and Parks would be required to
adopt rules and regulations establishing generally accepted
operation practices for sport shooting ranges. The rules and
regulations would have to be adopted within six months of the
effective date of the act.

The bill would provide that a sport shooting range in operation
on July 1, 1998 would not be subject to existing zoning law
regarding nonconforming uses. Shooting ranges that could benefit
from the exemption would be those in compliance with the rules
and regulations of the Secretary of Wildlife and Parks and where
the land is used continuously for the operation of a shooting range
after July 1, 1998.

Under existing law, zoning regulations do not apply to
existing uses unless, after the zoning regulation is adopted,
an existing building is altered in order to accommodate a
change in the use of the land or building.

If a building on a shooting range was damaged by more than
50 percent of its fair market value, restoration of the building
would have to be completed within a year of the damage or
settlement of any property damage claim. If those conditions are
met, any building located on land used for a shooting range could
be restored without conforming to local zoning requirements.
Shooting ranges would be subject to floodplain regulations that
apply to all land uses.

Existing law also prohibits restoration of an existing building
that is a nonconforming use if the building is damaged by
more than 50 percent of its fair market value after the
adoption of a zoning regulation.

Background

Testimony in support of the introduced version of the bill was
presented to the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs by
representatives of the: Department of Wildlife and Parks, National
Rifle Association, Kansas State Rifle Association, Kansas Liberty
Coalition and Capitol City Gun Club, Douglas County Rifle and
Pistol Club, Kansas Sportsmen's Alliance, Mill Creek Rifle Club,
and Air Capital Gun Club. Two individuals also presented
testimony in support of the bill.

Opposition to the bill was expressed by representatives of:
Wichita, Lenexa, and the League of Kansas Municipalities. A
representative of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association expressed
opposition to the assumption of risk defense provision in the
introduced version of the bill.

The House Committee amended the bill to delete the reference to "military style" semiautomatic firearms from the definition
of sport shooting range and to include managers and users in both
provisions that address noise pollution. The Committee also
amended the bill to delete the examples of risks that would be
included in the assumption of risk defense and to include in that
section the provision regarding determination of comparative
negligence.

The House Committee of the Whole amended the bill to
delete the assumption of risk and comparative negligence
provisions.

The Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs received
testimony in support of the bill from a representative of the
Kansas Sportsmen's Alliance, the Secretary of Wildlife and Parks,
and a number of individuals. Opponents to the bill included
representatives of the Kansas Association of County Planning and
Zoning Officials, Lenexa, Wichita, and the League of Kansas
Municipalities. Several residents of a Lenexa subdivision located
near a shooting range also presented testimony to the Senate
Committee.

The Senate Committee amended the bill to place the
nonconforming use provisions in existing law, rather than to
create a new statute specifically for shooting ranges. The
Committee's amendments also clarify the authority of the
Secretary of Wildlife and Parks to determine the content of the
standard operating practices for shooting ranges. Finally, the
Senate Committee amendments would not exempt shooting
ranges from local nuisance regulations.

The fiscal note prepared by the Division of the Budget for the
introduced version of the bill states that the Department of
Wildlife and Parks foresees no fiscal impact as a result of enactment of the bill. According to that fiscal note, the Association of
Counties could not determine the fiscal impact of the bill on
county governments. The Division points out in the fiscal note
that the Governor's budget for FY 1999 included a $200,000
expenditure from the Wildlife and Parks Fee Fund for grants to
local governments for development of shooting ranges. The fiscal
note does not address any impact of amendments to the bill.

1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/fulltext-bill.html.